Sunday, February 24, 2013

What's Behind Flogger Name-calling

Because I posted about Al Mackey's flogger practice of name calling that denigrates people's intelligence, Corey Meyer sends me this comment, "So Connie do you agree the (sic) Hitler and Lincoln a (sic) virtually the same as the secessionist claimed and that Lincoln did not extend liberties to certain people?"

Although I posted an answer in the comments, responding to that question is worth a blog post all its own.

First, what difference does it make whether I agree or disagree? That doesn't change the facts of what I wrote about Mackey and the floggers -  that disparaging the intelligence of people they disagree with is a front-line attack of the flogger mentality.

It doesn't change the fact that they throw around terms like "lunacy" and "clown" and "idiots" -- or, in the case of Eric Wittenberg and his sycophants, "galactically stupid" and "troglodytes" and "knuckle-draggers." And we can't forget Brooks D. Simpson and the Crossroads crew -- "rampant idiocy" and "ignorant morons" and "cretins" -- and that's just a tiny sampling.

Corey's question to me betrays his leftist, "group-think" mentality, which attempts to categorize people, lump them together in groups, and then make everyone in the group mental clones who all think alike and believe alike. Thus, if you can find something to smear one member with, it can be applied to the group as a whole. So if you're a supporter, defender or advocate of Southern heritage, you think exactly like all the other supporters, defenders and advocates of Southern heritage.  It simply cannot be acknowledged by these floggers that a variety of thought -- and some disagreement -- exists within the Southern heritage community.

The same assumptions are evident in Brooks Simpson's attempt to smear groups like the Southern Heritage Preservation group, with the statements of one or two members, and then to expand the smear to all Southern heritage advocates.  He occasionally attempts to create negative significance of the fact that someone in the group didn't make a comment -- and then attributes the "ominousness" of the silence to the whole group, and from them to the whole Southern heritage community.

Andy Hall's take is a bit different. He apparently thinks you're a fake Southern heritage advocate unless you think and believe exactly like "real Confederates." Although when he quotes a "real Confederate" he doesn't say how he knows everyone in the Confederacy held the identical thought or belief.  At least, I've never encountered such substantiation from him.

You see, leftism despises individuality and it shows up all kinds of ways. Among these floggers it is an intolerance for anyone who arrived at their views of history in any way but the accepted one -- that is, via the teachings of professional educators who all churn out classrooms full of mental clones...

In a broader application, you see it in Obama's and the feds' eyeing -- drooling over -- private pensions. They'd like nothing more than for the feds to sieze this enormous pool of money... Why? To help the totally-broke and deeply-in-debt federal government? That may be the excuse, but what lies behind it is the leftist/progressive/socialist mentality that cannot stand the idea that people are individuals rather than undifferentiated unit of the hive -- and they especially can't stand for the individual to OWN something, like a private pension, that not everyone has.  In the most extreme view, socialists believe no individual should own anything. The state should own everything, and administer it for everyone else.

But back to the floggers. Apparently the only thing they love more than portraying people they disagree with as morons is portraying them as ... you guessed it ... racists. This is why Brooks D. Simpson attempts to associate me with Brad Griffin (Hunter Wallace) and why he puts the false idea that if you haven't denied something on his blog then you support it. That is the reason for Corey posting about it time and again at his blog, such as his recent post about modern Southern Nationalists (which really has nothing to do with his purported interest, the civil war).

The obsession with racism and with denigrating people's intelligence clearly (to borrow a Levin/Hallism) demonstrates that their interest in the "civil war" is to use it as a tool for evilizing or stupidizing people they don't like.


  1. See, what have I said, it is very easy to send you off into a rant. I did not claim you think the same as the secessionist, that is why I asked IF you Agreed with his comments. What you fail to understand about our criticisms is that there is a right and wrong on some things. And when someone is wrong...we call them out on it.

  2. It's not a rant, Corey. It is an observation on flogger behavior and attitude. Who is to say you are right and the people you criticize are wrong? YOU!?! Ha. I don't accept the floggers' knowledge, intelligence or authority to do that.

    Besides, if you believe somebody is in error, and you want to "correct" them, you offer the correct data/info as you see it, which is the best you can do, since you aren't omniscient and infallible. You don't say "you idiot" and "what a moron" and "Stupid!" -- and the fact that floggers resort to this sort of name calling so often is proof that they care more about insulting and trying to hurt people -- not to mention feeding their own insatiable and needy egos -- than they do about history or accuracy or any of that....

    My post was not about what the secessionist said; it was about Mackey's reprehensible, intelligence-insulting name calling. The fact that you asked me whether I agreed with the secessionist means you suspect I do -- and that comes from exactly where I said it comes from -- your habit of leftist group-think.

  3. Connie, facts are provable. The secessionist claimed that Lincoln did not extend rights to anyone...he is a moron or did not pay one single bit of attention in 8th grade history to not know what Lincoln did. I am going to side on the first...he is a moron and willingly not wanting to accept the claim that Lincoln freed the slaves.

    He seems to be the kind of guy who would know this type of stuff since he wants secession...despite the fact that every secession attempt in this country has failed.

    My question to you is just that...a question. I don't know if you agree with him...that is why I asked the are making the assumption that I already believe you do.

    People like you and the secessionist cherry pick your history to fit your somehow...despite the mountain of evidence before you think that what the south did in starting and fighting the War of the Rebellion was right. The secessionist is trying to use that idea to call for secession again...not knowing the history behind the South's reason for secession...yep...slavery.

  4. Facts, especially from the past that nobody today lived through, are open to interpretation. If facts were provable, all you "historians" would never have any differences; you would all have to accept and agree with the "proof." But Simpson and Levin (and likely others), for example, sure find enough differences from other "historians" to periodically bellyache about them on their blogs.

    As for interpretation, there are people (almost always leftists) who seriously claim blacks weren't REALLY freed until the civil rights movement... That they were still slaves until the middle of the 20th century. So it depends, among other things, on how you conceive of "free" and "slave" and many other concepts.

    The idea that Lincoln "freeing slaves" means he wasn't a tyrant is a no-go.

    Why are you concerned with the fellow in the video? He's a nobody, no threat to you or the status quo self-appointed civil war thought police floggers, right? He was just somebody Jon Stewart found to hold up for ridicule to his audience -- because leftist do love to ridicule Southerners.

    Your focus on this guy is another example of the flogger mentality that NOBODY, but NOBODY be allowed to have a different viewpoint. They must be ferreted out, uprooted, tossed out.

    People like you claim to have facts on your side. You don't. You floggers are worse cherry-pickers than the most dedicated Southern heritage advocate. I see the mountain of evidence, Corey. I see the parts of it that you deliberately ignore -- that there was more to it than slavery.

    But even if slavery had been the only reason, that gave the north absolutely NO MORAL AUTHORITY for invading the seceded states, killing Southerners, burning their towns, laying their region waste and keeping them and their descendants in poverty for generations afterward -- because despite having outlawed slavery within their states' borders (to drastically reduce their black populations), the north was chin-deep in -- yep -- slavery. Made their riches off of it... Love of oppressing and ridiculing others (to feed their own egos), love of wealth -- that's the Yankee way...

  5. The point you are missing Connie is the guy on the video is ridiculed because he is historically wrong to say that Lincoln did not extend rights to anyone. Lincoln African-Americans through the EP and the 13th Amendment.

    So should he be ridiculed...Yes...without question and so should you if you believe what he says or does not say.

    Don't have the facts on our side...when document after document show the south seceded and fought for the protection of slavery how can the facts not be on our side.

    And to say the North had no moral authority to invade the south is a strawman...You would love people to believe that even if the south had not seceded the North would have still invaded and that is not true. But you would love it to you could try and deflect the cause of the war away from slavery...if those mean Yankees would have destroyed the south anyways.


  6. No, Corey, that is not why he is ridiculed. He's ridiculed because he is a white Southerner. When was the last time Jon Stewart subjected Larone Bennett to such ridicule for saying basically the same thing?

    No, he should not be ridiculed. Whether I think he's wrong or not isn't the point. Anybody who is wrong -- and they aren't necessarily wrong just because they see something differently than you do -- should not be ridiculed for it.

    Is that what you do to your students if you don't they say something you don't agree with? Ridicule them?

    If you are truly interested in truth and facts, you would present what you consider to be arguments against what he says, but that's not really where you're coming from. The Yankee approach is to sneer, smear, mock, ridicule and try to hurt people. That's how I know people like you, who pretend to revere "facts", are far more dedicated to to abusing people you don't like than you are dedicated to truth and facts.

    Sigh. You've been told this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. When are you going to GET IT?

    The states of the lower South -- the "first wave" -- seceded IN PART over slavery. Even Mississippi's secession declarations, which says "Our position is thoroughly identified with slavery," include OTHER reasons for seceding that. Your side ignores that, or lies about it, twists and manipulates it to say it was ALL about slavery. It wasn't. Georgia's includes even MORE reasons...

    The states of the upper South seceded because they were about to be bullied by the feds into sending troops to invaded the seceded states. You don't know this? If you have "document after document" you should know it. It's right there in the flippin' documents. But you see, you aren't about facts and documentation. You are about proving what you already believe, and you take what's in the "documents" that you think does that and you ignore the rest.

    Southerners fought because their land was invaded by a ruthless and brutal army that came South to kill them. Got that? TO KILL THEM. They fought to protect themselves, their families, their farms, communities and entire region and culture from an Army sent TO KILL THEM.

    Read my lips, Corey. THE NORTH HAD NO MORAL AUTHORITY -- NONE WHATSOFREAKINGEVER -- for invading the south. Where do you get this demented idea that "i would love people to believe that even if the south had not seceded the North would have still invaded." Link to where you imagine I've made such a claim. You can't because I haven't. Never stated it, never hinted at it.

    You need to return your crystal ball and get your money back, and through them chicken bones in the trash, because they're not working anymore. Unless you know you have nothing to base this demented statement on, and you're just lying about it. If the South had not seceded, the north would not have invaded, because it would have had no reason to. As long as the South was under the avricious yankee thumb, and the money continued to flow northerward, everything was copcetic in Yankeeland.

    The reason for the invasion after secession was because the north knew it couldn't make it as a nation on its own, without Dixie. "Preserving the Union" really meant, "Keeping our cash cow under our avaricious yankee thumb" and "keeping the South's money flowing northward." As long as the north had legal /political -- or failing that, practical -- means for taking the South's money, it would not have invaded. (Continued next comment)


  7. I haven't ever tried to "deflect" the cause of the war away from slavery. Slavery was ONE of the causes of secession for SOME of the states. The cause of the war -- the fighting -- was the presence of a barbaric army of invasion in the Southern states. So reality and facts do the "deflecting," meaning I don't have to. Even Sherman said slavery was not the cause/reason for the war, but the pretext for it.

    Look up "pretext" -- oh, heck, you won't so I'll do it for you:

    1. something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse
    2. the misleading appearance or behavior assumed with this intention.

    What this means, Corey, is that slavery was not the cause of the war. It was the excuse put forth to conceal the real reason, the true purpose, of the north's invasion and war on the Southern people. And all the yankee posturing about its moral position on slavery is just the misleading appearance/behavior put forth with the intention of hiding the north's true reason for warring on the South.

    So when are you going to get it through your head that that damnyankee army did NOT march south and invade the Southern states to free slaves? That was tacked on well into the war. It's in document after document... Why do you ignore it, if you respect the documents?

    Yes, the north knew it was laying waste to its cash cow with the war, but after the war, because it was still "in possession" of the Southern states, it picked the bones of the Confederacy, and continued to milk the emaciated region dry -- made virtually the entire population of the South slaves, robbed state treasuries, bought up miles, literally miles, of virgin timber for pennies an acre, paid wretched sawmill and mining workers with "scrip" instead of real money, to keep them enslaved, instigated discriminatory railroad freight rates so it woud be prohibitively expensive for Southern companies to ship finished goods (textiles, steel) to the north -- or even to other places in the South -- so all it could ship was cheaper, raw goods (which was then turned to finished goods in northern factories, which, of course, sold them at a handsome profit)...

    In practical application, what this meant was that it was cheaper for a clothing store in Atlanta to have finished dresses shipped down from a northern factory that it would have been to have finished dresses shipped ninety miles from a factory in Dalton. So the factory in Dalton didn't make dresses. It made bolts of cloth and shipped them north where factory workers enjoyed much higher wages for sewing dresses out if it.

    Discriminatory freight rates against Southern manufacturing did not end until nineteen-fifty-two, Corey, when I was three years old.

    Damnyankees didn't care about freeing slaves -- that became the perfume of "moral superiority" yankees sprinkled on their thieving and murdering during the war, and their rapacious post-war depredation that made the entire South into one big plantation for them exploit to satisfy their eternal greed.

    And the hatred! Oh, the hatred of the North for the South because it had the temerity, the audacity, the utter GALL to prefer independence to being "in union" with the north (i.e., under the north's avaracious thumb). That is what still fuels the hatred for the South you still see constantly -- in your blog, in Hollywood films, on filthy television like "The Early Show..." It's what fuels the visceral hatred you see for Southerners in comment threads following nearly any news article about the South, but especially anything with any connection whatever to the Confederacy.

  8. In my earlier comment, these sentences:

    "Is that what you do to your students if you don't they say something you don't agree with? Ridicule them?"

    ...should read:

    "Is that what you do to your students if they say something you don't agree with? Ridicule them?"


    Connie, there is nothing in the above Dec. of Secession that does not deal with is all about what the south feared the North would do to her institutions!

  10. Corey, some of the concerns listed by Mississippi have no inherent connection to slavery. They were a problem for Mississippi -- enough for the state to seceded over them, among other other reasons -- because some elements of the north were using slavery as an excuse to victimize Mississippi in these areas unrelated to slavery

  11. Could you please point them out, I don't read it that way.

    Thanks in advance!

  12. Sure, Corey. In fact, I've already pointed them out. Here ya go:


Comments are welcome, but monitored.